• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Mike Brown <mike@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:45:06 -0700

> My question is, must the XML parser developer honor these "shoulds" as if
> they were "musts" and produce a fatal error rather than accepting "UTF8"?

Heck no.  "Be lenient in what you accept, strict in what you produce" ...
in this case the test "producer" was wrong.

When the spec talks "UTF-8" it means exactly that.  But there's no
reason why processors shouldn't recognize other common aliases,
no reason to create a "must" where the spec doesn't have one.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
• Next by Date: Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
• Previous by thread: Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
• Next by thread: Re: Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread